Joint and several liability review: Statement of action and engagement summary

Summary of engagement

Introduction

As part of the statutory review of joint and several liability rules for Council Tax arrears and how they impact victim-survivors of domestic abuse, the Scottish Government engaged with stakeholders to inform policy development.

Relevant stakeholders were identified in an initial mapping exercise and engagement took place with representatives from the following organisations: Aberlour Children’s Charity, Amina MWRC, Citizens Advice Scotland, Financially Included, Money Advice Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Scottish Women’s Budget Group, Dumfries & Galloway Council, Dundee City Council, Falkirk Council, Glasgow City Council, Perth & Kinross Council, COSLA, Welsh Government, Scottish Water

During 21 engagement sessions that took place between February and October 2026, the review was discussed as well as the impact joint liability has on victim-survivors, local authorities’ current approaches to cases of domestic abuse and potential solutions to improve victim-survivors’ recovery.

Discussions often touched on other areas of Council Tax debt recovery methods, including the speed at which a household can become liable for the full year’s bill after missing one payment.

Impact of joint and several liability on victim-survivors

Support organisations and debt advice charities widely agreed that joint and several liability for Council Tax arrears can prolong the harm experienced by domestic abuse victim-survivors. Many are required to repay debts that were incurred through coercive or abusive relationships long after they have left those situations. In some areas, Council Tax arrears can also prevent individuals from qualifying for housing, which may leave women and children trapped in abusive households.

Stakeholders reported that victim-survivors are often willing to engage with local authorities or enforcement officers but are still held responsible for the entire debt. Many viewed this as unfair and argued that individuals should only be liable for their own share of Council Tax arrears. This was seen as a way to create a fairer system and reduce the financial burden placed on those escaping abuse.

While some local authorities have adopted sensitive and supportive approaches for victim-survivors, practice varies considerably across Scotland. Support organisations generally favoured a national, consistent approach to ensure vulnerable individuals receive the same support regardless of where they live. They also emphasised that local authorities should begin from a position of believing victim-survivors’ accounts of trauma, reflecting the broader shift towards trauma-informed public services.

Stakeholders highlighted additional barriers faced by ethnic minority women, older women, and people with limited English, who may experience greater poverty and difficulties navigating digital systems. Concerns were raised that fear of enforcement can lead people to agree to unaffordable repayment plans, leaving them unable to meet basic living costs. To improve access and engagement, it was recommended that local authorities offer clearer communication channels and easier access to staff through phone or face-to-face contact.

Impact of wider Council Tax debt recovery processes

Concerns were raised that some local authorities can take an approach to recovering Council Tax debt which may worsen the circumstances of victim-survivors of domestic abuse who are already facing financial hardship while leaving or rebuilding their lives after an abusive relationship. Stakeholders agreed that demanding rapid or full repayment and showing limited flexibility around repayment plans can create significant additional stress and financial pressure.

Support organisations and money advice charities described debt, particularly public debt, as a major issue for the people they support and a key contributor to poverty among low-income households and victim-survivors of domestic abuse. They also highlighted difficulties in achieving a joined-up approach across local authority departments, noting that while one service may be providing support to a family, another may be pursuing debt recovery in a way that undermines that support. As a result, there were calls for more holistic debt management, with multiple debts coordinated through a single point of contact.

Stakeholders further noted that the use of enforcement action can increase debt burdens, especially for those on low incomes, by adding extra costs and financial strain. Opinions were divided on whether the current 20-year period during which Council Tax debt can be pursued should be reduced. While some argued for alignment with the five-year limitation period for consumer debt, others cautioned that shortening the timeframe could lead local authorities to adopt more intensive debt recovery practices in an effort to recover debts more quickly.

Operational arrangements in local authorities

Stakeholders and local authorities broadly supported efforts to better assist victim-survivors of domestic abuse, including through tools such as the Economic Abuse Evidence Form. This standardised form is used by qualified money/debt advisers to share evidence with organisations that an individual has experienced economic abuse through a single route to reduce the need for them to repeatedly retell their experiences. While some councils already use the form to provide a more trauma-informed response, its adoption is not consistent across the country. Concerns were raised that the form requires significant staff training, making wider implementation challenging. Local authorities agreed with the overall policy intention but stressed the need for a practical and manageable system.

Questions were also raised about how domestic abuse-related Council Tax cases would be administered in practice. As Council Tax liability accrues daily, stakeholders sought clarity on how periods of cohabitation with an abuser would be assessed. Some local authorities noted that they already build flexibility into debt collection processes, including pursuing only one liable person where fairness or safeguarding concerns exist. Several councils reported taking a discretionary and lenient approach in particularly sensitive cases.

A key concern for local authorities was the need for clear guidance on evidential requirements. Determining when sufficient evidence of domestic abuse exists can be difficult, and a lack of evidence may complicate decision-making. In addition, domestic abuse cases are often managed informally rather than being formally recorded within Council Tax systems to avoid causing further harm to those affected. Some councils compared the issue to Housing Benefit recovery rules, highlighting possible legal limitations on recovering debts from only one member of a couple and indicating that professional guidance would likely inform their approach.

Stakeholders also discussed wider issues relating to Council Tax debt recovery. Many suggested that providing people with more time to seek advice and support could improve payment rates, increase local authority income, and reduce recovery costs. Some argued for stronger cost-benefit assessments before pursuing debts from individuals who are unable to pay. Concerns were also raised about low public awareness of Council Tax reductions, discounts and exemptions, with some people entering debt recovery processes despite potentially being eligible for financial support.

Reform proposals

Support organisations stressed that debt recovery processes should be improved to make recovery as smooth as possible for survivors of domestic abuse. They argued that a more holistic approach from local authorities and a reduction in enforcement action could significantly help those escaping abusive situations. Stakeholders also noted that survivors experiencing financial abuse are often more likely to seek support from money or debt advice services before approaching domestic abuse charities.

There was broad support for a referral system that allows trusted organisations, such as debt advice services or women’s aid groups, to refer survivors directly to local authorities. This approach would enable individuals to explain their circumstances only once, reducing the need to repeatedly disclose traumatic experiences. Many organisations also called for local authorities to show flexibility where survivors can demonstrate engagement with a support service, while some suggested mandatory income and expenditure assessments in domestic abuse cases.

Stakeholders agreed that requiring criminal convictions, protection orders, or crime reference numbers as evidence of abuse would be inappropriate, given the lengthy legal process and the underreporting of domestic abuse. Instead, they highlighted existing models that prioritise believing victim-survivors and emphasised that any evidence requirements should not impose financial costs on those seeking support. Organisations also stressed the importance of thoroughly testing any new measures to ensure they do not create opportunities for abusers to continue exerting control or manipulation.

Views were mixed on potential reforms to debt recovery procedures which affected the wider population. Some local authorities warned that extending the period before a missed payment triggers liability for the full annual bill could make it harder to deal with persistent non-payers and delay enforcement action. Others were less concerned, noting that similar reforms introduced in Wales were yet to reduce collection rates. Despite differing opinions, there was broad agreement that where taxpayers repeatedly fail to engage despite multiple attempts at contact, local authorities must retain the ability to proceed with enforcement measures.